Currently, people who should not have access to guns (i.E. Neo-Nazis) have access to guns. It is obvious why this should be changed. Restricting access to guns will also reduce gun violence, as guns will not be as readily available as they are today. The answer is obvious: We need to control guns.
I don't think we as a society value life enough as we should and the desensitization of the American people is evident in the death rates across roles throughout American Society. Funding Mental Health and rehabilitation services has long been a necessity and the influx of gun crimes and mass shootings seen in recent years is proof that we're not doing enough to prevent tragedies that we could have stopped. I don't see too many other ways we can curb the mass shooting problem without effective gun legislation, if banning some assault style weapons would help stop or at least reduce the impact shooters can have we should do it I think.
Honestly, I think that making guns harder to get away will not end school violence, however, I think that even though making guns harder to get will reduce school shootings, that it is more like treating the symptoms of a sickness then getting to the root cause. However, I believe that it is a good place to start.
Yes we need stricter gun laws. The us is the only developed nation with this high of a shooting rate. People say people kill people not guns but people kill people WITH GUNS. I mean, you could try throwing knives but you ain't gonna get that far. People that are pro-gun and pro-life are contradicting as all hell. We need to protect the kids, not your stupid rights to have a death machine.
I understand many want to project the right to bear arms, the right of a person to protect themselves and their property, and people who just want to hunt.
But is it really necessary for there to be as many as 2.5 million assault rifles on US streets right now? What noble purpose does that serve?
Given that, if somehow we're going to fix a problem with a law, then we need to overturn the ineffective ones and put in place better ones. But if you just want to pile more and more laws on top of the laws we have, then no. I'd rather have LEO work overtime to enforce the laws we have than sacrifice freedom in an attempt at security.
Our Founding Fathers creating the 2nd Amendment for a reason. After the Revolution, they wanted Americans to be able to defend themselves against the government. We have the right the bear arms so we can defend ourselves. Just because there are some bad people who misuse the right, doesn't mean we need to have stricter gun laws.
The Second Amendment protects each American's right to keep and bear arms. This is both a protection against tyrannical government and common criminals, both of which prey on the disarmed. We already have too much gun control as it is, yet none of the thousands of gun control laws on the books have done anything to stop mass shootings (a recent epidemic which did not exist in the past when guns were even less restrictive.) Promoting moral values and ensuring that all law abiding citizens can defend themselves is the best answer, although like any, it will not stop all evil.
All you have to do is look at some of Places like Chicago or California to see what stricter gun laws does. All it does it stop the honest people from owning guns. Most current gun laws and penalties are not enforced. Every time there is a mass shooting this debate comes up, the ultimate goal of the "stricter gun laws" is the removal of the Second Amendment as well as total disarmament of the people.
If you want proof of how that doesn't help all you have to look to is the United Kingdom where they banned guns and now they are trying to ban knifes. Honestly if the media would show the truth of how many times guns save lives, it would outweigh the other. However, that does not fit the agenda they are trying to push.
So we have high gun violence, and over 20,000 gun laws. Does that not seem odd? A law does not stop the criminal, it just provides grounds for punishment upon the breaking of the law.
When Nikolas Cruz sauntered into Parkland and killed those people, he broke dozens of laws. Laws do not prevent crime.
When this last shooter in Santa Fe, Texas, committed those murders, he broke dozens of laws. Laws do not prevent the crime.
When Stephen Paddock opened fire on the concert he broke dozens of laws. I am pretty sure that you can see where I am going.
So what will banning guns do? Get me killed. I am a law abiding citizen. My government demands my gun and I give it in, I might as well find the nearest MS-13 hangout and walk in with a "Shoot Me" sign on. If I lose my lawfully owned weapon, I will lose my life to the unlawful possession of a firearm.
Why would I want or need a "death machine"? Because I want to out gun the criminal who I mentioned earlier. I do not fight fair in defense of my life.
What happens to people in gun controlled states? Look at Chicago, highest gun violence, strictest gun laws. Shooting at Youtube in California which is renowned for harsh gun laws. Yes, Texas, one of the most free gun states. Kid stole the gun, modified the gun, walked into a GUN FREE ZONE, and killed people.
People also seem to forget that a gun by itself is not dangerous. A gun in the hands of a smart, well rounded, and life valuing individual is not dangerous except to the moron who tries to kill them. A gun in the hands of people like Nikolas Cruz, that is dangerous.
So there lies the solution. Teach people to value life. Teach people that killing another person should only be reserved for if your own life is in danger. If we continue to devalue life, school stabbing will become the next trend when you ban guns (not gonna happen, 100 million people own them in the U.S. larger than all combined worldwide military forces), after you ban knives, school suffocation cases. If you take away a means to end human life, the one trying to end it will only get more creative.